The economy of the United States is believed to be experiencing a “recession”, creating a global effect on the economies of other nations. The Democratic Party of the United States has several essential arguments when dealing with the national economy. For instance, Democrats largely believe in the principle of graduated tax incomes which focus on the belief that those who have higher earnings should pay more taxes and, conversely, the poor people should pay less tax.
Barak Obama has stronger chances of winning the 2008 Presidential Elections over Hillary Clinton when taking the matter of national economy as the central basis. Clinton’s strong urge for a ‘universal healthcare’ will not take her any further in the presidential elections for several reasons. On the basis of the national economy, Clinton cannot expect every single American to avail themselves of healthcare, especially among the poor population.
Although Clinton may strongly support affordable universal healthcare, it is by far an idealistic goal precisely because sustained payments for a healthcare provider is still beyond the reach of the pockets of many Americans. Moreover, the establishment of a universal healthcare system for Americans cannot be managed single-handedly by an already-busy government. That is the part where private companies offering healthcare services enter the subject.
Unfortunately, Fran Baum suggests that “the privatization of health services” has effectively “reduced access to healthcare for poorer people” inasmuch as it has also “reduced the likelihood of universal health services that offer equitable access to health services” . The fact that the resources of America are limited and that these resources should be properly allocated means that a large chunk of the national budget spent on a universal healthcare alone would create an economic imbalance, an event which is not within the top priorities of democrats.
Obama’s plan with regard to the national economy, on the other hand, zeroes in giving tax reliefs to the middle class Americans. Obama’s plans to give tax reliefs of approximately $1,000 for middle class Americans is based on the observation that wages have remained significantly stagnant while the steady rises in the prices of commodities have eaten a large part of the budget of Americans.
By trimming the taxes of middle class Americans which comprise the larger fraction of the nation, Obama expects that middle class will be given more purchasing power which in turn will translate to a revitalized economy. Although “the U. S. federal tax system is in reality a hybrid of an income and consumption tax, with some elements that do not fit naturally into either system” , Obama’s proposal makes it clear that every working family will be awarded tax reliefs whether or not they consume or spend too much, or they have a higher income in contrast to families of similar financial status.
The fact that the U. S. federal tax system is a hybrid system suggests that a tax cut on healthcare may not easily meet its goals. To surpass the challenge of determining which part of healthcare—the ‘income’ part of the ‘consumption’ part—is to be deducted with tax is to surmount a hefty task. An analysis of the status of the national economy of America and its peripheries is just one approach in determining or predicting the outcome of the impending presidential elections.
Apparently, technology also shares an equally important role in this national event, among others. Exit and public polls Frederic Solop maintains that the internet “has recently become an important part of the democratic process” . The fact that America is one of the top countries in the world which has the most number of people who are connected to the internet makes the country more susceptible to the changes in the online industry.
The online industry has also been equally strong in influencing the media, and as we know if it, the broadcasting media has its own role in forecasting the presidential elections. Exit polls are being used by several media networks such as CNN and Fox New Network as basis for their elections forecast. Since these television networks have a broad range of reach, it is not a farfetched idea that the observations derived by these networks from the exit polls contribute to the ways in which the voters are able to decide on their presidential candidate.
Exit polls are essentially public polls and this fact essentially gives the impression that the behavior of public opinion based on these exit polls is as close to the results of the presidential race as it can get. Of course, there are a number of exceptional cases such as the margin of error, usually at about 4 percent plus or minus, which can overturn the forecasted results assuming the difference in the rankings of the candidates are close to 2 to 4 percent. Add up to the forecasting use of exit polls the role of the media in actually transmitting these polls across the nation.
The Fox News Network previously included in its broadcast of the polling results in the different parts of America prior to “Super Tuesday” a partition of the various factors that led to the polling results. For instance, the analysis on the exit polls released by Fox News included a subdivision of the voting preferences which the network later used to arrive at certain observations such as how blacks voted in favor of either Clinton or Obama, or as to how women preferred Clinton over Obama and vice versa.
Fox News also had forecasts on the presidential elections based on public opinion which includes but is not limited to: the effects of Bill Clinton’s attitude towards the media in relation to Hillary’s performance in the election race, how the public views the gender and racial issues being infused into the elections, and the perception of the public concerning the personal attacks of the Clinton and Obama camps to one another. All of these things and a lot more have effects on the voting preference of the public.
Public opinions by any media network transmitted via the internet or through live broadcast are just some of the ways in forecasting the presidential elections. Bellwether states Bellwether states have become the center of attention of political analysts who cast their forecasts on the presidential elections. Although the states of Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, Ohio and Delaware have produces different outcomes in the national elections, these states have merely missed quite a few instances of these electoral outcomes.
It is for this reason that the belief in these Bellwether States as probable indicators of the next American President have remained since the early twentieth century. With regard to the Clinton-Obama presidential campaign, it can be said that these Bellwether States pose a certain bearing on the outcome of the elections. If either one of the two democratic candidates are able to win in these states, it can be considered that they may have already won the presidential elections. Yet this may simply be not the case, as the certainties of the current presidential race are yet to be seen.
If one is to delimit the considerations for presidency in terms of these states, then it can also be argued that the democratic winner in these Bellwether States has a higher chance of succeeding in the elections. However, the performance of Obama and Clinton in the various polls and the widely divided expert opinion on their presidential campaigns draws more and more uncertainties. If indeed the larger streams of factors are to be considered, the Bellwether States have very minimal bearing on the outcome of the presidential elections.
In fact, these states have a disparity in terms of the outcome of the national elections. While Obama and Clinton won two of these five states each, with the remaining to be decided sometime this February, it appears that there are further uncertainties that remain to be resolved in the coming days. Expert opinion In terms of expert opinion, it would be no surprise to have a division among these opinions because it is quite difficult to share personal views even when based on facts without having an inclination to infuse certain ideologies which border on the side of either Obama or Clinton.
Expert’s opinions nevertheless do hold certain grounds, and the weight of their merit resides more or less on the experiences and background of the ‘expert’. Political experts who both argue against and argue with the democrats, and with or against either Obama or Clinton, have credibility in their insights largely because of what they have contributed to American politics, especially in forecasting the presidential elections. As for the Obama-Clinton presidential campaigns, these experts are equally divided as well.The only similarity that one may see among them is their fervent desire to draw their forecasts on the elections.
Bibliography Baum, Fran. “Primary Healthcare: Can the Dream Be Revived? ” Development in Practice 13, no. 5 (2003): 517. Gordon, Roger, Laura Kalambokidis, Jeffrey Rohaly, and Joel Slemrod. “Toward a Consumption Tax, and Beyond. ” The American Economic Review 94, no. 2 (2004): 161. Solop, Frederic I. “Digital Democracy Comes of Age: Internet Voting and the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary Election. ” Political Science and Politics 34, no. 2 (2001): 289.